Statically typed, hot reloadable scripting? Sign me up.
With fast development cycles and a safe scripting language, Rust will find itself in every single programming niche. Server development, game development, desktop application development. If the WASM DOM bridge gets better, maybe even web development. Everything will open up.
You can prototype in the scripting language, write mature application logic in the scripting language, and for the parts that matter, move them to Rust.
I hope Roto can be that. There are lots of other Rust scripting languages that fall short.
A good scripting language will have great Rust interop, similar syntax, and allow simple calling and passing of data structures. It shouldn't weaken Rust in any way.
I've been out of the loop for a while, but last I checked, the running gag was that there are more game engines written in rust than games. Have things changed? Any high profile games that were made in rust?
https://github.com/mun-lang/mun
- Ahead of time compilation
- Statically typed
- First class hot-reloading
Not sure how both languages compare though
The downside is that it's not really possible to share types between the host application and the script as far as I know. They have something called called `StructRef` which does this a bit, but it's all runtime checks if I understand correctly.
If somebody here knows more about Mun, I'd be happy to be corrected. This is just my understanding from their documentation.
Rust is giving me just enough information to pull the current version of. More powerful introspection/reflection is not possible without derive macros. If you're ok with derive macros though, you could look into the 2 crates I mentioned.
Hope that answers your question!
The biggest limitation is that we don't have access to the full type system of Rust. I don't think we can ever support registering generic types (e.g. you can register `Vec<u32>` but not `Vec<T>`) and you don't have access to traits. So it would work if you can reduce your API to concrete types.
Otherwise - apart from some missing features - you could probably write big chunks in Roto if you wanted to. You could also prototype things in Roto and then translate to Rust with some simplified types.
Also you'd have to accept that it gets compiled at runtime.
With Rust's safety, it's not even that bad to re-open and re-load the binary when it changes; the big footgun with dlopen is use-after-free.
First, this language is syntactically a lot like Rust but semantically quite different. It has no references for example. We're trying to keep it simpler than Rust for our users.
Second, using Rust would require compiling the script with a Rust compiler, which you'd then have to install alongside the application. Roto can be fully compiled by the host application.
I think your approach might be preferred when the application author is also the script author. For example, if you're a game developer who is using a script to quickly prototype a game.
Right?
But I prefer the wasmtime webassembly component model approach these days.
Built a plugin system with that, which has one major upside in my book:
No stringly function invocation.
Instead of run_function("my-function-with-typo") I have a instantiated_plugin.my_function call, where I can be sure that if the plugin has been instantiated, it does have that function.
I manually compile a plugin and in my system I can "refresh" a plugin and even say "activate version 1.1 of the plugin" or "activate version 1.2" of the plugin etc.
But that's something I had to build myself and is not built into wasmtime itself.
I assume you wouldn't ship the whole plugin runtime for each plugin that wants to host another plugin?!
match Plugin::instantiate_async(&mut store, &component, &linker).await {
Ok(plugin) => {
match plugin
.plugin_guest_oncallback()
.call_ontimedcallback(&mut store, &callback_name)
.await
{
Ok(()) => debug!("Successfully called oncallback for {plugin_path:?}"),
Err(e) => warn!("Failed to call oncallback for {plugin_path:?}: {e}"),
}
}
Err(e) => {
error!("Failed to call oncallback for {plugin_path:?}!: {e}");
}
}
If of course I put a wasm file in the plugin folder that doesn't adhere to that definition, that wasm file isn't considered a plugin.
It looks like Rust. All Rust scripting languages do. Is this true for all other languages? Is this just a property of embeddable scripting languages, they will always resemble the language they're implemented in and meant to be embedded in?
To your more general question: it depends. AngelScript [0] looks very much like C++, while others, like Lua, don't. It's really up to the designer's discretion.
[0]: https://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/, but https://angelscript.hazelight.se/ has better examples of what it actually looks like in use
Et tu, brute? :D
Not koto (https://koto.dev/) which is one of the reasons I appreciate it. I want an embeddable language targeted at my users, rather than myself which I feel Rust-like ones do. I also want an embeddable language not tied to my implementation language so if I change one, I don't have to change both. Koto only supports Rust atm but I don't see why it couldn't be supported elsewhere.
No. Think about Lua or Tcl (both implemented in C) or others like Embeddable Common Lisp.
Makes sense to me - which means scripting languages for curly-brace languages should probably use either Lua-style begin-end or Python-style significant indentation.
I think, that I'd better deal with a language recognition, I could configure emacs to use different highlighting for different languages. Or I could change background color for buffers based on a language.
[1] https://github.com/traefik/yaegi [2] https://marc.vertes.org/yaegi-internals/
One of my favorite things about writing Rust is that it's expression-oriented (i.e. almost everything is an expression), something you almost never see in non-functional languages.
I was wondering if Roto is also expression-oriented?
So it's closer to something like C or C++, where it just defined stuff and you can choose what to use? I guess that's fine when there's no initialization for the script to do. Maybe in your domain that's never the case. But many languages end up adding static initialization as a first-class feature eventually.
Wait, what?! Isn't that choice a bit extreme?
There have been plenty of times in scripting where I've needed loops! Am I missing something here?
[1] https://rotonda.docs.nlnetlabs.nl/en/stable/roto/00_introduc...
So it should probably say "Roto _in Rotonda_ does not have loops". Roto the language as a separate project can then have loops.
Also by using v8, I open up new possiblities via wasm (write in any lang and run it here?)
Will be helpful if somebody enlighten me.
Personally I don't think it's a good choice for what it seems Roto is used for (mission critical code that never crashes) since TS doesn't have a sound typesystem and it's still very easy to fuck up without additional tooling around it.
And personally I will go out of my way to not use TS/JS if I can
But I don’t even think people in networking would say that, it is canonically BGP.
This is kind of like complaining about the abbreviation HTML, sure yes it is Hypertext Markup Language but everyone knows it as HTML to the point that there are probably people that don’t know it’s an abbreviation.
But it still would have been a favor to the original commenter to write "BGP (Border Gateway Protocol)". If you write just "BGP" you annoy the reader who doesn't know what it is; they'll think it's your fault. But if you write "BGP (Border Gateway Protocol)", they still won't know what it is but they won't be irritated at you anymore.
I'm currently writing an article about Flowspec and had to comb a few RFCs to understand what's going on.
I opened the Roto announcement and felt very smart, lol
Biological and Genetic Programming: In biology, BGP can refer to methods or algorithms used in genetic programming or bioinformatics.
BGP (Bureau of Governmental Personnel): In some governmental contexts, BGP may refer to a specific bureau or office related to personnel management.
BGP (Bureau of Geographical Planning): In urban planning or geography, it might refer to a bureau that focuses on geographical data and planning.
BGP (Big Green Potato): In agriculture or gardening, it could refer to a specific type of potato or a gardening initiative.
BGP (Bilateral Grant Program): In finance or international relations, it may refer to programs that provide grants between two countries.
Did you mean Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)?
It's a trite comment to make (the original complaint). Don't know an abbreviation? Takes two seconds to look it up. Not all content on the web is written for the lowest common denominator, and thank god for that.